Monday, 18 February 2013

Using Einstein's name

Almost sixty years after his death, Einstein’s name is still a very potent one. Advocates of this or that belief still feel that it is in some way a trump card to claim that Einstein supported their views. The implication is clear; if the world’s greatest brainbox agreed with me, who are you to argue? We see both theists and atheists using the great man’s name to support their positions on religion and Einstein is even quoted as a secret believer in such strange ideas as telepathy and ESP. Forty years ago, when Velikosky’s mad book Worlds in Collision enjoyed a vogue among the less well intellectually endowed, much was made by the publisher of the fact that when he died, Einstein had a copy of this book on his death; as though that in some way endorsed Velikovsky’s theories. Einstein’s name is even used to sell things. I am sure that some readers have come across the Baby Einstein products, designed for those who wish to accelerate their baby’s development.

It was inevitable that home educators would latch on to this trend and try and pretend that Einstein was one of their own! You will regularly see him in lists of famous people who were home educated and a company in America even sells a tee-shirt printed with the slogan, ‘Einstein was home schooled’. He wasn’t of course, but a few days ago we saw people here trying to show that Einstein was in fact an autonomous learner. This is true as far as it goes. Many bright children at school have always pursued interests outside the academic curriculum and this is still the case today. Those commenting though went a little further than this and suggested that Einstein learned most of his mathematics and physics at home by himself and that he was somehow a supporter of home education and an opponent of schools. This is less certain.

What we must bear in mind when considering Einstein’s views on schools is that he attended school in Germany during the 1880s and 1890s. This was not a good time for a restless and brilliant intellect to be in one of that country’s schools. The educational system was hugely restrictive and independent thought was discouraged. Einstein’s dislike of formal schooling was rooted deeper than that though. At the age of five he, a Jew, was sent to a Catholic primary school. There was a great deal of anti-Semitism about at that time in Germany and the child experienced the full brunt of it. During a lesson about Jesus’ life, for instance, the teacher handed round six inch long nails and asked the children to consider what it would be like to have these hammered through their ankles and wrists. He then told them that the Jews had caused this to be done to Jesus; whereupon all eyes in the class turned to the little Jewish boy. It is hardly to be wondered at that Einstein grew up with a bad feeling about school!

Like all children, Einstein’s home background played a great part in his later academic success. He was given a book on calculus at the age of twelve and his family used to talk a lot about various topics. There can be little doubt that this conversation served to stimulate the child and awaken his interest in mathematics and physics. Whether this would have been sufficient education in itself, without the teaching he received at school, is doubtful.

I was accused on the thread where this was being discussed of ignoring the points which were made, but this was only because I am not sure really what the points were. Einstein went to school and learned about mathematics and physics. He hated school and felt that his family stimulated his interest in these subjects more than the school did. This was without doubt true. It is still true today. The family attitude to education and learning is of far greater importance than the school attended. It is so and always has been.

I saw nothing controversial in what was said about Einstein and so did not feel the need to dispute any of it. If anybody feels that Einstein’s life, education or later opinions about the schooling which he received has anything useful to tell us about home education, then I would be pleased to hear it.

54 comments:

Simon wrote,"Whether this would have been sufficient education in itself, without the teaching he received at school, is doubtful. ...Einstein went to school and learned about mathematics and physics."

He learnt the maths and physics that interested him at home, before it was taught in schools to his fellow pupils. And he actually went to a secondary school that had a reputation as an enlightened school with a liberal atmosphere. I agree though that schools in that time and place were very different to schools here and now. However, his descriptions of his learning experiences at home stand alone and are inspirational.

The commenters did not just use Einstein's name, they used the descriptions of his experiences and his analysis and conclusions based on those experiences along with their own experiences of education today. He's a prominent example of someone who successfully used autonomous learning and who recognised that, "for this delicate little plant [learning], aside from stimulation, stands mostly in need of freedom".

I would think that someone who has experienced both methods of learning at first hand and has given the matter some consideration and thought would be a good person to quote. Presumably you would pounce an any evidence from someone who had been autonomously educated and then complained about their education?

'I would think that someone who has experienced both methods of learning at first hand and has given the matter some consideration and thought would be a good person to quote. '

This would useful if any parents today were weighing up the choice between sending their child to school in Germany during the 1880s or keeping her at home and educating her there, yes. Einstein's experiences tell us something useful about formal schooling in a certain time and place; not about the principle of schools as such.

Really though, I think that for once, we are all in agreement here. We all agree that schools are poor places to acquire an education and that the schools in Germany at the end of the 19th Century were repressive and not likely to encourage independent thought. We also all agree that the home background and family influence is of far greater importance in determining academic outcome than the school attended.

I might just remind readers that I am not in favour of schools and in fact have a pretty low opinion of them as good places to receive a decent education. I think this fact is sometimes forgotten.

"Einstein's experiences tell us something useful about formal schooling in a certain time and place; not about the principle of schools as such." They also tell us about the efficacy of autonomous self directed learning, though it is amusing watching the lengths you will go to to avoid admitting it.

'"Einstein's experiences tell us something useful about formal schooling in a certain time and place; not about the principle of schools as such." They also tell us about the efficacy of autonomous self directed learning, though it is amusing watching the lengths you will go to to avoid admitting it.'

I have never denied this for a moment and rather took it for granted that this was common ground. My own daughter taught herself calculus at twelve; I would be hard pressed to claim that autonomous, self-directed learning is either non-existent or ineffective! The question is whether this type of learning is sufficent in itself, or whether it needs to be supplemented by, and based upon the knowledge gained by, more formal instruction.

Autonomous education can include formal instruction if the child requests it as I'm sure you are aware. AE has been sufficient for my children to go into the further education, higher education and work of their choosing without problems, so yes, in our experience, it is sufficient in itself.

It strikes me that everybody here, me included, agree that autonomous and self-directed learning is both possible and desirable. I suspect that most of those reading this are also, like me, not well disposed towards schools. We probably all think as well that home and family are very much more important when it comes to education than school. It is pleasant to reflect that, for once, everybody is in agreement!

Imagine the scene. Permanently laid before a child is a smorgasbord of nutritious, colourful, tasty food. The child browses the table at leisure picking and choosing at will and receives exactly the nutrition it needs, when it needs it. But Webb wonders, should we set up a drip as well or strap the child into a high chair and force feed it, just to be on the safe side. No of course not we cry, that would be damaging to the child's appetite and unbalance his nutrition. Ah Webb says, but you see there was child I knew whom I shall call Jack. He has been force fed all his life and now eating has become unpleasant to him. When taken off a forced feeding regime he did not immediately relish the smorgasbord before him, instead he honed in on apple sauce and will eat nothing else. Because of this we should not wait until he becomes bored with apple sauce and his natural human curiosity and hunger is re-awakened, no we should return to some flavour of force feeding and we should consider force feeding all children, regardless of the fact that they are voluntarily availing themselves of the feast and are well nourished.

'Imagine the scene. Permanently laid before a child is a smorgasbord of nutritious, colourful, tasty food. The child browses the table at leisure picking and choosing at will and receives exactly the nutrition it needs, when it needs it.'

It is an exceedingly bad analogy. Many children do not even know that such a thing as calculus exists; let alone that it can be interesting and useful. The same goes for a lot of other things. This is really part of the school's role, to introduce children to things that they might not have encountered and allow them to acquire a taste for new ideas.

Interestingly enough, the experiment you describe was actually conducted many years ago. It was found, or claimed, that children would settle down after a time to a healthy and well balanced diet.

If the child follows his or her passions and interests and the parents are engaging with the child to facilitate this, making useful suggestions and offers of resources then the child *will* discover what is interesting and useful *to them*. You should perhaps read Objectivist Epistemolgy to get a grasp of how the conceptual process works and the conditions required for its effective functionning.

"This is really part of the school's role, to introduce children to things that they might not have encountered and allow them to acquire a taste for new ideas."

Not really, the school is constrained by the national curriculum and the requirement to perform well in league tables. It is the role of the engaged parent to offer these things and the reason why the children of such parents do so well. Notice I said "offer" which is the hallmark of autonomous education, not "prescribe" which would be non-autonomous education.

Research by Desforges commissioned (and buried) by the DfES found that parental and engagement with the child and responsiveness to the child was the single most important factor affecting the child's achievements. It also found that when under eight settings introduced "purposive conversation" (the main method of education used by autonomous educators) it had a massively beneficial effect that could not be matched by other pedagogic models.

So it would seem that parents who are engaged with and responsive to their child, facilitating the child's learning and having lots of purposive conversation is what is needed. I would be surprised if this model is actually very different from what you yourself practised Simon. You did not practice it exclusively but plenty of people have and can avouch for it. All the research supports them. If you are willing to ignore the evidence then nothing can be said that will convince you.

'Research by Desforges commissioned (and buried) by the DfES found that parental and engagement with the child and responsiveness to the child was the single most important factor affecting the child's achievements. It also found that when under eight settings introduced "purposive conversation" (the main method of education used by autonomous educators) it had a massively beneficial effect that could not be matched by other pedagogic models. '

Again, I agree wholeheartedly. This was why I became a home educator. As I have already said, the home background and family influence are far more important than what happens at school. I suspect that most home educating parents would be of this view. Really, this is a remarkable day; everybody here seems to be of one mind!

' "purposive conversation" (the main method of education used by autonomous educators) '

Alter this to 'the main method used by home educators' and you might be closer to the mark. I certainly never made my daughter sit down to be lectured, as though in a classroom; nor can I imagine many home educating parents who do so.

We disagree then only on this. You "direct" purposive conversation. You have an end in mind. You ask leading questions. Autonomous educators allow the child to ask the questions. They stimulate but do not direct the conversation. Your purpose in the conversation is to teach something. Autonomous educators' purpose is for the child to learn what he or she has set out to learn and to illuminate many more pathways for exploration if the child wishes.

'"purposive conversation" (the main method of education used by autonomous educators) had a massively beneficial effect that could not be matched by other pedagogic models. " So case closed then.'

It is a little more complicated than that, I am afraid. There are some techniques in any enterprise which are more effective generally than others. This does not mean that you can rely only upon that particular technique. It just means that this is the most likely to work. There will still be times when you will need to use other, more specialised methods. It is the same in many fields; woodwork, painting, education, writing or horticulture, to name but a few. Just because one technique is more effective than others as a rule, does not mean that you can just forget the other methods!

'We disagree then only on this. You "direct" purposive conversation. You have an end in mind.'

Well, I have certainly done so. But not to the exclusion of all else. If you are with a child from dawn to dusk, there is plenty of time for all sorts of conversations. Some of these will be directed; others spontaneous.

It would appear that Simon believes there is a body of essential knowledge that must be acquired by all children. It is not clear how this body of knowledge is selected and by whom and what evidence there is for the existence of such a body. It is his faith in the existence of an essential body of knowledge that leads him to assert autonomous learning is not by itself sufficient to ensure that such a body of knowledge is communicated. In this I agree with him. Not every child will choose to acquire this "essential" knowledge without intervention. However, Simon has not yet proven the case for the existence of an immutable body of knowledge. The knowledge that is essential to an individual human being will vary from person to person from time to time and place to place.

For example, there are few amongst us who would argue that basic literacy and numeracy are optional skills in modern western society but it is precisely because they are so important and so prominent that we can rely on the undamaged curiosity of a learner to acquire them. We are driven, literally driven, by our innate instinct for survival to acquire the skills necessary for our survival. That is why we learn to communicate and why we get up and walk.

The evidence of history and home educators commenting here shows us that those who shine brightest have tended to do so when allowed to pursue the learning they are inwardly driven to pursue by their own aptitudes and interests. This is precisely what Einstein meant when he talked of "holy curiosity".

If Webb reads Objectivist Epistemology he will discover that learning is not the acquisition of knowledge but the integration of that knowledge and the process of integration cannot be coerced.

As I am sure he himself will argue, advanced concepts need a foundation of basic ones upon which to build or as Rand puts it - "Starting from the base of conceptual development—from the concepts that identify perceptual concretes—the process of cognition moves in two interacting directions: toward more extensive and more intensive knowledge, toward wider integrations and more precise differentiations. Following the process and in accordance with cognitive evidence, earlier-formed concepts are integrated into wider ones or subdivided into narrower ones."

However this is still not an argument for the transmission of an externally decided body of knowledge. Rather it is an argument that the process *must* be directed by the individual because only the individual knows which concepts s/he has already integrated (which is a different matter to knowing which facts have been transmitted).

Those who set out to "teach" must accept the fact that they have no way of either knowing or controlling what knowledge is integrated nor how it is integrated.

"There will still be times when you will need to use other, more specialised methods. It is the same in many fields; woodwork, painting, education, writing or horticulture, to name but a few" well of course autonomous educators provide formal instruction when the child seeks such. But not otherwise.

'However, Simon has not yet proven the case for the existence of an immutable body of knowledge. '

I have not proven the case and nor would I attempt to; the notion is quite mad! In medieval England, knowledge of Latin would have been pretty handy if you wanted to get on in the world; today, it would be all but useless. Seven thousand years ago, the ability to chip away an edge from a piece of flint would have been useful; today, you would get on better if you knew how to operate a computer. Where did this idea of an 'immutable body of knowledge' come from and, more interestingly, why would anybody think that I was attempting to prove the case for its existence?

Simon wrote,"Where did this idea of an 'immutable body of knowledge' come from and, more interestingly, why would anybody think that I was attempting to prove the case for its existence?"

You are splitting hairs. The original writer should probably not have used 'immutable' since it gaves you an obvious get out clause (hence the history lesson). However, you did believe that there is a 'body of knowledge' that you needed to impart to your child. You decided what she would learn and then set about achieving it.

You have also, in the past, advocated a checklist against which local authorities can measure a home educated child to check that they are learning and have outlined a variety of pieces of knowledge that you would expect a child of a particular age to know. Clearly you believe in the existence of a 'body of knowledge' that children should be expected to learn.

So really then this is the nub. No, autonomous educators cannot rely on self directed learning to transmit this essential body of knowledge that Simon believes in. However they dispute the existence of the essential body in the first place. It's a shame we had to endure four years of flak on this blog to get to the bottom of that.

"You might as easily sum the case up by the old saying about leading a horse to water but not being able to make it drink" well that is also true. And since both over-drinking and dehydration are dangerous, beyond making sure sweet fresh water is available it is by far the best plan to allow the horse to drink according to its own inclination and forget ideas about recommended daily intake and monitoring of fluid intake.

I hardly think it splitting hairs to point out that what constitutes useful knowledge for a citizen today might be wholly irrelevant tomorrow! Indeed, I cannot imagine any sane person undertaking the edcuation of a child without having this idea to the forefront of his or her mind. Am I to take it that you disagree? Or am I rather to take your agreement with this for granted?

I was ticked off a few days ago for trying to guess what people commenting here mean and not taking their words at face value. Now when I assume that somebody who writes of an immutable body of knowledge means just that; I am splitting hairs. Ah well, there is no pleasing some folk on here!

'Do you or do you not agree that the nub of your disagreement with autonomous educators is that children will not necessarily autonomously learn all the things you define as essential knowledge?'

This is not a simple question. Many autonomous educators have an idea of the sort of things which they want their children to know. This is true of some well known proponents of this method of education; they set out to teach their children their times tables, about biology and so on; not because the children have asked to learn these things, but rather because the parents think it wholesome that they should learn about them.

"they set out to teach their children their times tables, about biology and so on; not because the children have asked to learn these things, but rather because the parents think it wholesome that they should learn about them." This is not autonomous education.

Dear me, how you prevaricate. 1) You believe there are some things it is essential to trasmit. Yes or no. 2) You acknowledge there is merit in autonomous learning but believe it cannot be relied upon because of 1). Yes or no.

"they set out to teach their children their times tables, about biology and so on; not because the children have asked to learn these things, but rather because the parents think it wholesome that they should learn about them." This is not autonomous education.'

This is all more than a little puzzling! When the following piece of film was shown on television a couple of years ago, it was hailed by quite a few autonomous educators as a brilliant example of autonomous education. It is of course David Hough's wife and son. As you will see, multiplication tables are being taught, although the child would rather play on the computer. There is no indication that the boy himself has asked about the difference between birds who hop and those which walk; it is something his mother thinks he should know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGKF5j74Yw

You seem to be saying that contrary to what everybody claimed at the time, this is not autonomous education at all. Is that correct? If so, many well known autonomously educating parents must have got themselves into a muddle when they praised this filmed account.

'Dear me, how you prevaricate. 1) You believe there are some things it is essential to trasmit. Yes or no. 2) You acknowledge there is merit in autonomous learning but believe it cannot be relied upon because of 1). Yes or no.'

Tell me anonymous, has anybody told you that your debating style is a little confrontative? We began today with general agreement on most points and I felt that it might be constructive to find common ground, rather than seek out differences. Pressing somebody in this way by insisting on yes or no answers to very complex subjects is pointless and ill mannered.

"Kit learns what he wants, when he wants""Do you want to find out which is which?""We don't plan what he's going to learn because we don't know what he's going to want to learn" These suggest autonomous education. The limitation on computer time and classes, if he didn't choose them, is not consistent with autonomy. So this is a mixture of both approaches.

To which, the child made no reply and so the mother told him anyway! This is absolutely priceless. I suppose that I could ask a child, 'Do you want to learn a list of the kings and queens of England?' and if he didn;t reply, then I could teach him them anyway?

Disregarding what the mother says, which part of this film looks like autonomous edcuation? As I say, quite a few autonomous educators were very enthusiastic about it. Ah, maybe this bit, which you quote above, when the mother says, "We don't plan what he's going to learn because we don't know what he's going to want to learn" The only problem is, it is she who has turned on the computer and is googling about birds and then transmitting the information to her son. This looks suspiciously to me like a lesson on ornithology; planned and administered by a parent.

'Well to be fair, we don't know what was edited, Kit may have replied. But I agree it doesn't seem like AEd. Maybe mixed. The point is?'

Ah, there I can help. I had a long conversation with the people who filmed it! They spent a couple of days at the home, during which the child wanted only to play super-mario, while the mother tried to teach him.

The point I am making is that an education which was widely accepted by autonomous educators as accurately and fairly depicting autonomous education, actually shows a parent choosing a body of knowledge and then transmitting it to her child. When this film was shown, there were many enthusiastic remarks from autonomous educators and not one had any hesitation in endorsing it as being autonomous education. This leads me to suppose that many autonomously educating home educators are in fact doing precisely the same; choosing a body of knowledge that they think necessary for their children and then transmitting it to them by teaching.

"many autonomously educating home educators are in fact doing precisely the same; choosing a body of knowledge that they think necessary for their children and then transmitting it to them by teaching."

That sentence is simply an oxymoron. That isn't autonomous ed and they ain't autonomous educators.

Is it just me or you have you suddenly autonomous ed is a "good" thing and therefore you have to make autonomous ed fit your model of home education?

"widely accepted by autonomous educators as accurately and fairly depicting autonomous education" where? I've been around the autonomous ed scene for over a decade and have never seen this before today.

What we may be seeing with this video is the effect of being observed by an interviewer/inspector. The parents probably felt under pressure to show education happening, wages were being paid, time is precious, etc., they've got to film something; and in the process their education style was distorted.

This is the type of problem often experienced by home educators when a visit or even a written report is due. They feel that they've got to 'encourage' their child to produce something visible and concrete that they can show or post to the inspector. This process inevitably distorts the learning experience – the act of observation changes the observed behaviour.

'The parents probably felt under pressure to show education happening, wages were being paid, time is precious, etc., they've got to film something; and in the process their education style was distorted.'

Nothing of the sort. The filming took place at the mother's invitation over the course of two days. There was no hurry at all. She wished to demonstrate her son's usual education and was quite happy that what had been filmed reflected this. Many autonomous educators congratulated her upon being brave enough to open up her home in this way and all were convinced that this showed autonomous education to good advantage for a wider audience.

Now, we are told here that the parent was deceived and she is not an autonomous educator after all. It is all very puzzling.

"Nothing of the sort. The filming took place at the mother's invitation over the course of two days. There was no hurry at all."

That says it all really, the expectation that two days are sufficient, especially with a film crew and interviewer present. And why would this preclude pressure to show education happening and resultant distortion of education style?

Because some people believe they are autonomous educators and others believe what they saw was autonomous education in action doesn't make it so. Though to be fair to the family, I don't think they forced him to come to the computer; he was free to ignore the commentary about birds and appeared to do just that (if I'm remembering it correctly).

If he knew he was free to ignore them (there would be no consequences, subtle or otherwise), and he did not feel coerced by the commentary, it could still be AE. It’s really difficult to tell as an outsider. If he had become visibly bothered or annoyed with his parents and they had continued regardless, it would have been clear cut, but as far as I recall, this didn’t happen.

It's quite a good demonstration in another way though. The child appeared to ignore the information he wasn't interested in. I would guess that he recalls little of the information, an example of how adult directed teaching often fails, in my view. But I could be wrong. You would need to observe the family for far, far longer, and preferably without their knowledge, since observation invariably changes things.

"Now, we are told here that the parent was deceived and she is not an autonomous educator after all. It is all very puzzling."

Why so puzzling? It's possible they were AE, but it's impossible to say either way for sure based on just the film. We would have to know how the child experienced the situation. If he felt coerced, then they were failing at AE (we all do some of the time), but if he knew he could ignore their commentary about birds without consequences, then this may be AE.

AE is something people aim for but sometimes fail at - a bit like a person riding a bike that occasionally has an accident and falls off. The falling off incidents do not mean that they are not a bike rider, do they? Likewise, I'm sure you must have failed to transmit information to your daughter occasionally. Does this mean you were no an educator? Any less puzzled?

Thank you very much for the great list and I appreciate your efforts to bring such a huge list for us. I really appreciate posts, which might be of very useful. I look forward to future updates. Once again thanks. Keep smiling. Bio Sanjaya | Les Privat | Hasil Prediksi